Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not sure whether allowing that would be good or bad. I see no > obvious killer reason why it'd be bad, but it seems like the kind of > thing we might regret someday. pg_global is in some sense an > implementation artifact, so allowing users to depend on it might be > bad in the long run.
Agreed, it feels scary to allow it. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
